2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The "date of the disposition of refusal" in the annexed list of the Defendants' disposition of refusal shall be revoked all of the measures of rejection of each claim for correction against the Plaintiff for the sum of 000 won of the value-added tax stated in the "amount of each value-added tax" (However, the "amount of the claim for correction" in the annexed list of the disposition of refusal attached to the complaint seems to be written in 000 and the "amount of the claim for correction" in the annexed list of the disposition of refusal attached to the complaint seems to be written in 600 and the "amount of the claim for correction" in 5th of May 15, 2009.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

The reasons for this decision are as set forth in the first island except for the addition of the new arguments and judgments by the Defendants in this court as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The defendants' assertion

The plaintiff seeks part of the money acquired by deceit from the salesperson through the lawsuit of this case. Since the State is expected to view or presume the whole amount of tax to be refunded when winning the plaintiff in accordance with the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, even if winning the lawsuit of this case, there is no specific practical benefit or real necessity. In addition, there is no "profit to be legally protected" to bring a lawsuit of this case against the plaintiff who intends to collect the amount acquired by deceit through the crime of fraud. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

B. Determination

The plaintiff, through the lawsuit of this case, intends to correct the disposition rejecting a request for correction against the amount of tax reported and paid, even though the transaction of this case does not fall under the supply of goods, and it cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff intends to seek part of the money acquired from the salespersons (the same shall apply to the case where the money acquired by deceit from the seller was a financial resource for the amount of tax reported and paid). Meanwhile, according to Article 8(3) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, the property acquired from the victim cannot be confiscated. Thus, the defendants' assertion that there is no specific real benefit or real necessity of the lawsuit of this case on different premise cannot be accepted ( further, even if the defendants' assertion as to the above premise is acknowledged, such circumstance is merely an economic and real reason after the lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that there is such circumstance).

In addition, as seen earlier, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff intended to take over the amount acquired through fraud through the instant lawsuit, and as long as the disposition of refusal to take corrective measures against the erroneous payment of value-added tax for the instant transaction has to be revoked, even if there is the same purpose as the Defendants asserted against the Plaintiff, it cannot be said that there is no benefit to legally protect the Plaintiff seeking the revocation of the said refusal disposition. Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted in its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the appeal by the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit.